W. Ross Milliken

The Estate of Joseph Zabukovec appealed a trial judge's decision granting Judith Tomek and Joseph Zabukovec Jr. joint beneficial ownership of 75% of a property based on unjust enrichment and proprietary estoppel.

The Estate argued the trial judge erred in valuing the land and failed to consider Joseph Sr.'s contributions to the house construction.

The Court of Appeal found an error in the land valuation but declined to interfere with the remedy, citing the broad discretion in crafting equitable remedies for proprietary estoppel.

The court affirmed the trial judge's order as consistent with the parties' original intention for the house and house lot to be conveyed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Litigation Administrator, Edward Waters, was personally ordered to pay costs due to acting in his own interest.

The respondent brought a motion for an order releasing funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant opposed, suspecting an undisclosed side arrangement between the respondent and the buyer that would affect equalization.

The court dismissed the applicant's opposition, finding no prima facie evidence to support her suspicions or a real risk that her equalization claim would be defeated.

The court ordered the funds distributed equally to the parties, emphasizing that mere suspicion without concrete evidence of asset dissipation or a strong likelihood of a significant equalization payment is insufficient for a preservation order.

The applicant Wife and respondent Husband, married in 1983 and separated in 2011, sought a beneficial interest in a 15-acre property owned by the Husband's late father (Joseph Sr.), who died intestate.

The Husband and Wife had built and continuously improved a house on the property, believing they would inherit it.

The court addressed claims of oral agreement, resulting trust, unjust enrichment, and proprietary estoppel against Joseph Sr.'s Estate.

The court found no oral agreement or resulting trust but established unjust enrichment and proprietary estoppel regarding the house, but not the entire acreage.

The claims were not statute-barred.

The court awarded the Husband and Wife a joint beneficial ownership of 75% of the property via a constructive trust, with the Estate retaining 25%, and granted the divorce.

The applicant and respondent each brought motions regarding interim parenting, child support, spousal support, interim costs, and drug testing.

The parties agreed to temporary joint custody, but disputed the parenting schedule.

The court ordered the continuation of the current fixed access schedule due to the respondent's recent completion of a drug rehabilitation program and criminal charges.

The court determined the respondent's income for child support purposes based on his base salary, excluding historical discretionary bonuses paid by his father's company.

The applicant's requests for interim spousal support and interim costs were dismissed.

Both parties were ordered to undergo bi-monthly drug screening for six months.

The parties separated after a 30-year cohabitation.

At trial, the court determined the equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The applicant sought to include a $100,000 promissory note as a debt and exclude unvested stock options from his net family property.

The court drew an adverse inference from the applicant's failure to call expert evidence, excluding the promissory note debt and including the post-separation realized value of the stock options.

The court also awarded the respondent ongoing spousal support of $5,200 per month, recognizing both compensatory and non-compensatory entitlement arising from the long-term marriage.

A high‑conflict custody dispute involving three children where the parents made mutual allegations of parental alienation and sexual abuse.

After extensive evidence, including testimony from police, child protection authorities, medical professionals, and an Office of the Children’s Lawyer clinical assist, the court found no deliberate sexual abuse and concluded the allegations were largely influenced by the responding parent.

The court determined that the views of the older children favouring residence with the applicant were independently formed, while the younger child’s views were likely influenced by the responding parent.

Applying the best interests test under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court awarded the applicant sole custody of all three children.

Access for the responding parent to the older children was to occur according to their wishes, while a structured transitional schedule was ordered for the younger child, with counselling and a future judicial review.

Following judgment in favour of the plaintiffs against two defendants jointly and severally for damages arising from a civil claim, the plaintiffs sought a supplementary endorsement addressing pre-judgment interest.

The statement of claim included a request for pre-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court confirmed that the plaintiffs were entitled to pre-judgment interest at the statutory rate.

Judgment was therefore amended to include pre-judgment interest at 4.5% on the damages award commencing from the date the statement of claim was issued.

The plaintiffs and defendants were co-owners of a yacht.

The defendants, acting as trustees, listed the yacht for sale with a broker.

The broker sold the yacht but subsequently entered receivership before distributing the full proceeds.

Prior to the bankruptcy, the defendants managed to recover $114,628.80 from the broker, which they deposited into their own business account.

The plaintiffs sued for their share of the proceeds.

The court found that while the defendants did not breach their trust duties in hiring the broker or leaving the funds there during settlement negotiations, they remained trustees of the recovered funds.

The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs half of the recovered amount, as the third co-owner abandoned his claim.